ship from Chaldea spread itself throughout all the East; from thence passed into Egypt; and at length came among the Greeks, who propagated it through all the western nations.

To this sect of the Sabians was diametrically opposite that of the Magi, which also took its rise in the same Eastern countries. As the Magi held images in utter abhorence, they worshipped God only under the form of fire; looking upon that, on account of its purity, brightness, activity, subtilty, fecundity, and incorruptibility, as the most perfect symbol of the Deity. They began first in Persia, and there and in India were the only places where this sect was propagated, and where they have remained even to this day.' Their chief doctrine was, that there were two principles; one the cause of all good, and the other the cause of all evil. The former is represented by light, and the other by darkness, as their truest symbols. The good god they named Yazdan and Ormuzd, and the evil god Ahraman. The former is by the Greeks called Oromasdes, and the latter Arimanius. And therefore when Xerxes prayed that his enemies might always resolve to banish their best and bravest citizens, as the Athenians had Themistocles, he addressed his prayer to Arimanius, the evil god of the Persians, and not to Oromasdes, their good god.

Concerning these two gods, they had this difference of opinion; that whereas some held both of them to have been from all eternity; others contended that the good god only was eternal, and the other was created. But they both agreed in this, that there will be a continual opposition between these two, till the end of the world; that then the good god shall overcome the evil god, and that from thenceforward each of them shall have his peculiar world; that is, the good god, his world with all the good; and the evil god, his world, with all the wicked.

The second Zoroaster, who lived in the time of Darius, undertook to reform some articles in the religion of the Magian sect, which for several ages had been the predominant religion of the Medes and Persians; but which, since the death of Smerdis who usurped the throne, and his chief confederates, and the massacre of their adherents and followers, had fallen into great contempt. It is thought this reformer made his first appearance in Ecbatana.

The chief reformation he made in the Magian religion was, that whereas before they had held as a fundamental tenet the existence of two supreme principles; the first light, which was the author of all good; and the other darkness, the author of all evil; and that of the mixture of these two, as they were in a continual struggle with each other, all things were made; he introduced a principle superior to them both, one supreme God, who created both light and darkness; and who out of these two principles, made all other things according to his own will and pleasure. But, to avoid making God the author of evil, his doctrine was, that there was one supreme Being, independent and self-existing from all eternity: that under him there were two angels; one the angel of light, who is the author of all good; and the other the angel of darkness, who is the author of all evil: that these two, out of the mixture of light and darkness, made all things that are: that they are in a perpetual struggle with each other; and that where the angel of light prevails, there good reigns; and that where the angel of darkness prevails, there evil takes

1

[Among the ancient Magi were three degrees of priests, ordinary priests, overseers of these, and an archimagus, or head of the Magi, who was held to be successor of Zoroaster, and is termed the supreme Pontiff of the Magian faith. These in the Pehlevi language or old Persian, were styled Magh, i. e. Magus, Mubad superintendant, and Mubad Mubadan or high priest. Hyde, Relig. Vet. Pers. chap. xxviii. p. 348. Lord, in his account of the Parsee religion, calls them by the names of Daroos, Herboods, and Distecoos. In more modern times, the priests of the Parsees at Bombay and Surat, are called Desatirs.] Plut. in Themist. p. 126.

place: that this struggle shall continue to the end or the world; that then there shall be a general resurrection and a day of judgment, wherein all shall receive a just retribution according to their works; after which the angel of darkness and his disciples shall go into a world of their own, where they shall suffer in everlasting darkness the punishment of their evil deeds; and the angel of light and his disciples shall also go into a world of their own, where they shall receive in everlasting light the reward due unto their good deeds; that after this they shall remain separate for ever, and light and darkness be no more mixed together to all eternity. And all this the remainder of that sect, which still subsist in Persia and India, do, without any variation after so many ages, still hold even to this day.

It is needless to inform the reader, that almost all these tenets, though altered in many circumstances, do in general agree with the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures; with which it plainly appears the two Zoroasters were well acquainted, it being easy for both of them to have had an intercourse or personal acquaintance with the people of God: the first of them in Syria, where the Israelites had been long settled; the latter at Babylon, to which place the same people were carried captive, and where Zoroaster might have converse with Daniel himself, who was in very great power and credit in the Persian court.

Another reformation, made by Zoroaster in the ancient Magian religion, was, that he caused temples to be built, wherein their sacred fire was carefully and constantly preserved; which he pretended himself to have brought down from heaven. Over this the priests kept a perpetual watch night and day, to prevent its being extinguished.

Whatever relates to the sect or religion of the Ma gians, the reader will find very largely and learnedly treated in Dean Prideaux's Connexion of the Old and New Testament, &c. from whence I have taken only a short extract.

Their Marriages, and the Manner of Burying the Dead

Having said so much of the religion of the Eastern nations, which is an article I thought myself obliged to enlarge upon, because I look upon it as an essential part of their history, I shall be forced to treat of their other customs with the greater brevity. Amongst which, the marriages and burials are too material to be omitted.

There is nothing more horrible, or that gives us a stronger idea of 'the profound darkness into which idolatry had plunged mankind, than the public prostitution of women at Babylon, which was not only authorised by law, but even commanded by the religion of the country, upon a certain annual festival, celebrated in honour of the goddess Venus, under the name of Mylitta, whose temple, by means of this infamous ceremony, became a brothel or place of debauchery. This wicked custom was still in being, and very prevalent when the Israelites were carried captive to that criminal city; for which reason the prophet Jeremiah thought fit to caution and admonish them against so scandalous an abomination.

Nor had the Persians any better notion of the dig nity and sanctity of the matrimonial institution, than the Babylonians. I do not mean only with regard to that incredible multitude of wives and concubines, with which their kings filled their seraglios, and of which keeping them all shut up in separate apartments unthey were as jealous as if they had had but one wife, der a strict guard of eunuchs, without suffering them to have any communication with one another, much less with persons without doors. It strikes one with horror to read how far they carried their neglect and contempt of the most common laws of nature. Even

to fight with the greater resolution; but the true reason was the love of pleasure, by which they were overcome and enslaved, before they came to engage with the enemy.

Another instance of their folly was, that even in the army they carried their luxury and extravagance with respect to their tents, chariots, and tables, to a greater excess, if possible, than they did in their cities. The most exquisite meats, the rarest birds, and the costliest dainties, must needs be found for the prince in what part of the world soever he was encamped. They had their vessels of gold and silver without number; instruments of luxury,' says a certain historian, not of victory, proper to allure and enrich an enemy, but not to repel or defeat him.

I do not see what reason Cyrus could have for changing his conduct in the last years of his life. It must be owned, indeed, that the station of kings requires a suitable grandeur and magnificence, which may on certain occasions be carried even to a degree of pomp and splendour. But princes, possessed of a real and solid merit, have a thousand ways of compensating what they seem to lose by retrenching some part of their outward state and magnificence. Cyrus himself had found by experience, that a king is more sure of gaining respect from his people by the wisdom of his conduct than by the greatness of his expenses; and that affection and confidence produce a closer attachment to his person than a vain admiration of unnecessary pomp and grandeur. Be this at will, Cyrus's last example became very contagious. A taste for pomp and expense first prevailed at court, then spread itself into the cities and provinces, and in a little time infected the whole nation, and was one of the principal causes of the ruin of that empire, which he himself had founded.

What is here said of the fatal effects of luxury, is not peculiar to the Persian empire. The most judicious historians, the most learned philosophers, and the profoundest politicians, all lay it down as a certain, indisputable maxim, that whenever luxury prevails, it never fails to destroy the most flourishing states and kingdoms; and the experience of all ages, and all nations, does but too clearly demonstrate the truth of this maxim.

What then is that subtle, secret poison, that thus lurks under the pomp of luxury and the charms of pleasure, and is capable of enervating at the same time both the whole strength of the body, and the vigour of the mind? It is not very difficult to comprehend why it has this terrible effect. When men are accustomed to a soft and voluptuous life, can they be very fit for undergoing the fatigues and hardships of war? Are they qualified for suffering the rigour of the season; for enduring hunger and thirst; for passing whole nights without sleep upon occasion; for going through continual exercise and action; for facing danger and despising death? The natural effect of voluptuousness and delicacy, which are the inseparable companions of luxury, is to render men subject to a multiiude of false wants and necessities, to make their happiness depend upon a thousand trifling conveniences and superfluities, which they can no longer be without, and to give them an unreasonable fondness for life, on account of a thousand secret ties and engagements that endear it to them, and which by stifling in them the great motives of glory, of zeal for their prince, and love for their country, render them fearful and cowardly, and hinder them from exposing themselves to dangers, which may in a moment deprive them of all those things wherein they place their felicity. SECTION II.-THE ABJECT SUBMISSION AND SLAVERY

OF THE PERSIANS.

causes of the declension of the Persian empire. And indeed what contributes most to the preservation of states, and renders their arms victorious, is not the number, but the vigour and courage of their armies; and as it was finely said by one of the ancients; from the day a man loseth his liberty, he loseth one half of his ancient virtue. He is no longer concerned for the prosperity of the state, to which he looks upon himself as an alien; and having lost the principal motives of his attachment to it, he becomes indiffer ent to the success of public affairs, to the glory or welfare of his country, in which his circumstances allow him to claim no share, and by which his own private condition is not altered or improved. It may truly be said that the reign of Cyrus was a reign of of liberty. That prince never acted in an arbitrary manner; nor did he think, that a despotic power was worthy of a king; or that there was any great glory in ruling an empire of slaves. His tent was always open; and free access was allowed to every one that desired to speak to him. He did not live retired, but was visible, accessible, and affable to all; heard their complaints, and with his own eyes observed and rewarded merit ; invited to his table not only the generals of his army, not only the principal officers, but even subalterns, and sometimes whole companies of soldiers. The simplicity and frugality of his table made him capable of giving such entertainments frequently. His aim was to animate his officers and soldiers, to inspire them with courage and resolution, to attach them to his person rather than to his dignity, and to make them warmly espouse his glory, and still more the interest and prosperity of the state. This is what may truly be called the art of governing and commanding.

In reading Xenophon, we observe with pleasure, not only those fine turns of wit, that justness and ingenuity in their answers and repartees, that delicacy in jesting and raillery; but at the same time that amiable cheerfulness and gayety which enlivened their entertainments, from which all pomp and luxury were banished, and in which the principal seasoning was a decent and becoming freedom, that prevented all constraint, and a kind of familiarity which was so far from lessening their respect for the prince, that it gave such a life and spirit to it, as nothing but a real affection and tenderness could produce. I may venture to say, that by such a conduct as this a prince doubles and trebles his army at a small expense. Thirty thousand men of this sort are preferable to millions of such slaves as these very Persians became afterwards. In time of action, on a decisive day of battle, this truth is most evident, and the prince is more sensible of it than any body else. At the battle of Thymbra, when Cyrus's horse fell under him, Xenophon takes notice of what importance it is to a commander to be loved by his soldiers. The danger of the king's person became the danger of the army; and his troops on that occasion gave incredible proofs of their courage and bravery.

Things were not carried on in the same manner, under the greatest part of his successors. Their only care was to support the pomp of sovereignty. I must confess, their outward ornaments and ensigns of royalty did not a little contribute to that end. A purple robe richly embroidered, and hanging down to their feet, a tiara, worn upright on their heads, and encir cled by a superb diadem, a golden sceptre in their hands, a magnificent throne, a numerous and splendid court, a multitude of officers and guards; these things must needs conduce to heighten the splendour of roy alty; but all this, when this is all, is of little or no value. What is the king in reality, who loses all his merit and his dignity when he puts off his ornaments?

Some of the Eastern kings conceiving that they should thereby procure the greater reverence to their Hom. Odyss. P. v. 322.

Tantas víres habet frugalitas Principis, ut tot impendiis, tot erogationibus sola sufficiat. Plin. in Paneg. Traj.

persons, generally kept themselves shut up in their palaces, and seldom showed themselves to their subjects. We have already seen that Dejoces, the first king of the Medes, at his succession to the throne, introduced this policy, which afterwards became very common in all the Eastern countries. But it is a great mistake, to imagine that a prince cannot descend from his grandeur, by a sort of familiarity, without debasing or lessening his greatness. Artaxerxes did not think so; and Plutarch observes, that that prince, and queen Statira, his wife, took a pleasure in being visible and of easy access to their people; and by so doing were but the more respected.

2

Among the Persians no subject whatsoever was allowed to appear in the king's presence without prostrating himself before him; and this law, which Seneca with good reason calls a Persian slavery, Persicam servitutem, extended also to foreigners. We shall find afterwards, that several Grecians refused to comply with it, looking upon such a ceremony as derogatory to men born and bred in the bosom of liberty. Some of them, less scrupulous, did submit to it, but not without great reluctance; and we are told, that one of them, in order to cover the shame of such a servile prostration, purposely let fall his ring when he came near the king, that he might have occasion to bend his body on another account. But it would have been criminal for any of the natives of the country to hesitate or deliberate about a homage, which the kings exacted from them with the utmost rigour.

3

What the Scripture relates of two sovereigns, whereof the one commanded all his subjects on pain of death, to prostrate themselves before his image; and the other under the same penalty suspended all acts of religion, with regard to all the gods in general, except to himself alone; and on the other hand, of the ready and blind obedience of the whole city of Babylon, who ran altogether on the first signal to bend the knee before the idol, and to invoke the king exclusively of all the powers of heaven: all this shows to what an extravagant excess the Eastern kings carried their pride, and the people their flattery and

servitude.

So great was the distance between the Persian king and his subjects, that the latter, of what rank or quality soever, whether satrapæ governors, near relations, or even brothers to the king, were looked upon only as slaves; whereas the king himself was always considered, not only as their sovereign lord and absolute master, but as a kind of divinity. In a word, the peculiar character of the Asiatic nations, and of the Persians more particularly than any other, was servitude and slavery; which made Cicero say, that the despotic power which some were endeavouring to establish in the Roman commonwealth, was an insupportable yoke, not only to a Roman, but even to a Persian.

It was therefore this arrogant haughtiness of the princes on one hand, and the abject submission of the people on the other, which according to Plato, were the principal causes of the ruin of the Persian empire, by dissolving all the ties wherewith a king is united to his subjects, and the subjects to their king. Such a haughtiness extinguishes all affection and humanity in the former; and such an abject state of slavery leaves the people neither courage, zeal, nor gratitude. The Persian kings governed only by threats and menaces, and the subjects neither obeyed nor marched, but with unwillingness and reluctance. This is the idea Xerxes himself gives us of them in Herodotus, where that prince is represented as wondering how the Grecians, who were a free people,

could go to battle with a good will and inclination. How could any thing great or noble be expected from men, so dispirited and depressed by habitual slavery as the Persians were, and reduced to such an abject servitude; which, to use the words of Longinus is a kind of imprisoninent, wherein a man's soul may be said in some sort to grow little and contracted.

I am unwilling to say it; but I do not know, whether the great Cyrus himself did not contribute to introduce among the Persians both that extravagant pride in their kings, and that abject submission and flattery in the people. It was in that pompous ceremony, which I have several times menuoned, that the Persians, (till then very jealous of their liberty, and very far from being inclined to make a shameful prostitution of it by any mean behaviour or servile compliances) first bent the knee before their prince, and stooped to a posture of adoration. Nor was this an effect of chance; for Xenophon intimates clearly enough, that Cyrus, who desired to have that homage paid to him, had appointed persons on purpose to begin it; whose example was accordingly followed by the multitude. In these little tricks and stratagems, we no longer discern that nobleness and greatness of soul which had ever been conspicuous in that prince till this occasion: and I should be apt to think, that being arrived to the utmost pitch of glory and power, he could no longer resist those violent attacks wherewith posterity is always assaulting even the best of princes, secundæ res sapientium animos fatigant ;10 and that at last pride and vanity, which are almost inseparable from sovereign power, forced him, and in a manner tore him, from himself and his own naturally good inclinations; Vi dominationis convulsus el mutatus,11 SECTION III.-THE WRONG EDUCATION OF THEIR

PRINCES ANOTHER CAUSE OF THE DECLENSION OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE.

Ir is Plato still, the prince of philosophers, who makes this reflection; and we shall find, if we narrowly examine the fact in question, how solid and judicious it is, and how inexcusable Cyrus's conduct was in this respect.

Never had any man more reason than Cyrus to be sensible how highly necessary a good education is to a young prince. He knew the whole value of it with regard to himself, and had found all the advantages of it by his own experience. What he most earnestly recommended to his officers, in that fine discourse which he made to them after the taking of Babylon, in order to exhort them to maintain the glory and reputation they had acquired, was to educate their children in the same manner as they knew they were educated in Persia, and to preserve themselves in the practice of the same manners as were observed there.

Would one believe, that a prince, who spoke and thought in this manner, could ever have entirely ne glected the education of his own children? Yet this is what happened to Cyrus. Forgetting that he was a father, and employing himself wholly about his conquests, he left that care entirely to women, that is, to princesses, brought up in a country where pomp, luxury, and voluptuousness reigned in the highest degree; for the queen, his wife was of Media. And in the same taste and manner were the two young princes, Cambyses and Smerdis, educated. Nothing they asked was ever refused them: all their desires were anticipated. The great maxim was, that their attendants should cross them in nothing, never contradict them, nor ever make use of reproofs or remonstrances with them. No one opened his mouth in their presence, but to praise and commend what they said and did. Every one cringed and stooped and bent the knee before them; and it was thought essen10 Saliust

Cap. xxxv. Cyrop. 1. viii. p. 215. 11 Tacit. Annal. 1. vi. c. 48.

13 Lib. iii. de Leg. p. 694, 695. 18 Cyrop. 1. vii. p. 200

What surprises me the most is, that Cyrus did not, at least, take them along with him in his last campaigns, in order to draw them out of that soft and effeminate course of life, and to instruct them in the art of war; for they must needs have been of sufficient years: but perhaps the women opposed his design, and overruled him.

Whatever the obstacle was, the effect of the education of these princes was such as might be expected from it. Cambyses came out of that school what he is represented in history, an obstinate and self-conceited prince, full of arrogance and vanity, abandoned to the most scandalous excess of drunkenness and debauchery, cruel and inhuman, even to the causing of his own brother to be murdered in consequence of a dream; in a word, a furious frantic madman, who by his ill conduct brought the empire to the brink of destruction.

His father, says Plato, left him at his death vast provinces, immense riches, with innumerable forces by sea and land: but he had not given him the means of preserving them, by teaching him the right use of such power.

This philosopher makes the same reflections with regard to Darius and Xerxes. The former not being the son of a king, had not been brought up in the same effeminate manner as princes were; but ascended the throne with a long habit of industry, great temper and moderation, a courage little inferior to that of Cyrus, by which he added to the empire almost as many provinces as the other had conquered. Put he was no better a father than he, and reaped no benefit from the fault of his predecessor in neglecting the education of his children. Accordingly, his son Xerxes was little better than a second Cambyses.

From all this, Plato, after having shown what numberless rocks and quicksands, almost unavoidable, lie in the way of persons bred in the arms of wealth and greatness, concludes, that one principal cause of the declension and ruin of the Persian empire was the bad education of their princes; because those first examples had an influence upon, and became a kind of rule to, all their successors, under whom every thing still degenerated more and more, till at last their luxury exceeded all bounds and restraints. SECTION IV.—THEIR BREACH OF FAITH AND

WANT OF SINCERITY.

We are informed by Xenophon, that one of the causes both of the great corruption of manners among the Persians, and of the destruction of their empire, was the want of public faith. Formerly, says he, the king, and those that governed under him, thought it an indispensable duty to keep their word, and inviolably to observe all treaties into which thay had entered, with the solemnity of an oath; and that even with respect to those that had rendered themselves most unworthy of such treatment, through their perfidiousness and insincerity; and it was by this sound policy and prudent conduct, that they gained the absolute confidence, both of their own subjects, and of all their neighbours and allies. This is a very great encomium given by the historian to the Persians, which undoubtedly belongs chiefly to the reign of the great Cyrus; though Xenophon applies it likewise to that of the younger Cyrus, whose grand maxim was, as he tells us, never to violate his faith upon any pretence whatsoever, with regard either to any word

Clyrop. I. viii. p. 239. * De Exped. Cyr, l. i. p. 267,

he had given, any promise made, or any treaty he had concluded. These princes had a just idea of the regal dignity, and rightly judged, that, if probity and truth were banished from the rest of mankind, they ought to find a sanctuary in the heart of a king; who, being the bond and centre, as it were, of society, should also be the protector and avenger of faith engaged; which is the very foundation whereon the other depends.

Such sentiments as these, so noble and so worthy of persons born for government, did not last long. A false prudence, and a spurious artificial policy, soon succeeded in their place. Instead of faith, probity, and true merit, says Xenophon, which heretofore the prince used to cherish and distinguish, all the chief officers of the court began to be filled with those pretended zealous servants of the king, who sacrificed every thing to his humour and supposed interests; who hold it as a maxim, that falsehood and deceit, perfidiousness and perjury, if boldly and artfully put in practice, are the shortest and surest expedients to give success to his enterprises and designs; who look upon a scrupulous adherence in a prince to his word, and to the engagements into which he has entered, as an effect of pusillanimity, incapacity, and want of understanding; and whose opinion, in short, is, that a man is unqualified for government, if he does not prefer considerations of state, before the exact observation of treaties, though concluded in never so solemn and sacred a manner.

The Asiatic nations, continues Xenophon, soon imitated their prince, who became their example and instructor in double-dealing and treachery. They soon gave themselves up to violence, injustice, and impiety: and from thence proceeeds that strange alteration and difference we find in their manners, as also the contempt they conceived for their sovereigns, which is both the natural consequence and usual punishment of the little regard princes pay to the most sacred and awful solemnities of religion.

Surely the oath by which treaties are sealed and ratified, and the Deity invoked not only as present, but as guarantee of the conditions stipulated, is a most sacred and august ceremony, very proper for the subjecting of earthly princes to the supreme Judge of heaven and earth, who alone is qualified to judge them; and for the keeping of all human majesty within the bounds of its duty, by making it appear before the majesty of God, in respect of which it is as nothing. Now, if princes will teach their people not to stand in fear of the Supreme Being, how shall they be able to secure their respect and reverence to themselves? When once that fear comes to be extinguished in the subjects as well as in the prince, what will become of fidelity and obedience, and on what foundation will the throne be established? Cyrus had good reason to say, that he looked upon none as good servants and faithful subjects, but such as had a sense of religion, and a reverence for the Deity: nor is it at all astonishing that the contempt which an impious prince who has no regard to the sanctity of oaths, shows of God and religion, should shake the very foundations of the firmest and best established empires, and sooner or later occasion their utter destruction. Kings, says Plutarch, when any revolution happens in their dominions, are apt to complain bitterly of their subjects' unfaithfulness and disloyalty: but they do them wrong; and forget that it was themselves who gave them the first lessons of their disloyalty, by showing no regard to justice and fidelity, which on all occasions they sacrificed without scruple to their own par ticular interests.